January 14, 2007

Why, you may ask? The answer is quite simple: SA bylaws require one to attend three meetings to become a voting member. Impeachment proceedings can be brought against a sitting president if two-thirds of the voting members present agree to consider it. After consideration during the meeting, three-fourths of the members present must assent to the motion for impeachment in order for it actually to be effected.

Alright, now a little True SA Backstory: last term, Adam S*peen, the former chairman of the Academic Affairs Committee, served alcohol to minors in the SA offices of Collis. Tim Andreadis in turn reported this to April Thompson, the director of Undergraduate Judicial Affairs. While I can't say I applaud Tim's action, the following response on Adam's is totally overblown and intensely personal—not legitimate in any sense.

Adam S*peen was placed on probation by the College. When S*peen caught wind of Tim's involvement in the matter, he punched a hole in one of the walls of the SA office. It has since been filled in, but I checked with a staffer at Collis, who confirmed that it happened, and you can still clearly see the spackling over the spot:

That picture is a close-up of this wall:

You can click on the pictures to get to larger images.

Okay, so now let's take a look at the attendance rolls for the Tuesday SA meeting. I've flagged names who just happen to be from Chi Gam or the Dartmouth Review or, in a very few cases, known cronies. If I missed anyone, please let me know.

[So these names don't turn up in a Google search and link to this entry, I've removed them--AS 2/22/2006]

Curiouser and curiouser. It looks to me like someone is trying to stuff the ballot-box. And I know that impeachment is Adam's goal because it has been independently confirmed to me by more than one source.

This attempted impeachment is just plain silly. Adam S*peen is enlisting the support of The Review, which has a known grudge but no substantive complaint against Tim, and members of his own frat, Chi Gam, who he can apparently order around, which is kind of stupid. All in all, pretty shitty.

Whether S*peen is just trying to harass Tim or actually thinks his scheme will work, I don't know. I do know that Adam's case does not have legitimate grounds for Tim to be removed from office.

Edit: It's rather pointless to adjust the list above now, but from information I've received, I removed the asterisk from one name. My apologies to Ruslan.I have also received more accurate information about the Reviewers who were at the meeting—I'm not going to designate them in any way, but I know there are nine of them, so the commenter below who remarked about the low number is incorrect.

It's pretty well known that Andreadis and Shpeen hated each other in SA this past year. Before the incident, Shpeen had resigned from the SA exec board. Also, Andreadis organized an SA pong tournament with beer. So, wasn't it just political backstabbing for Andreadis to report Shpeen?

Just a thought, but of the 10 Chi Gams that are listed, 3 of them are actually on SA Committees. Only 4 of the flagged attendees are affliated with the Review. So the rest are "known cronies," which are a bit harder to identify and, I dunno, just maybe a bit subjective. Considering there are 50+ Chi Gams on campus and close to as many writers listed on the Review's masthead, the correlation could be a stretch, and the assertion that he can "order them around" is ridiculous. Even if Adam Shpeen is organizing a conspiracy here, he could just be recruiting his friends (who would obviously come disproportionately from his frat) and ideological sympathizers (those opposed to Andreadis--like conservative Review writers). Connecting this effort to particular organizations is just absurd when you look at the numbers in comparison with the overall attendance.

But that is aside from the fact that you present no actual evidence that there is any conspiracy going on or that Adam Shpeen is behind it (of course, other than the abundance of "known cronies" attending the meeting and the word of "more than one source"). This whole thing seems kinda suspect to me. Also, even if there is some effort to impeach Andreadis, maybe it is fueled by people who actually don't like his job as president, rather than Adam Shpeen ordering people around. Asserting otherwise while presenting no evidence to support you is journalistically dishonest.

Actually, it's not journalistically dishonest. I presented a set of facts and drew conclusions based on further information from what I believe to be reliable and well-connected sources. That actually is what reporting is about. I doubt you even read newspapers frequently.

And the reason behind starring people is simply to point out how many (new and old) are decidedly under Shpeen's influence, which is pretty ridiculous when he doesn't even have a position any more and is essentially doing his best to make SA more irrelevant. If you have a problem with any of the actual names I starred—that is, if you feel I starred anyone unfairly—please let me know.

Finally, I do believe that there are many people who are dissatisfied with Tim's job and who have been since he depledged at Chi Gam and decided not to stand by while all the misogynistic shit and outright sexual assault going on at this campus continued. Tim is disliked by many people not because he's doing a bad job, but because he's doing a better job than they want. The past two terms (fall and last spring) have been amazingly different from previous terms here in terms of what conversations are held and who feels comfortable standing up for themselves and others. Tim might not be the only one doing that, but he is the center of all of it.

Fourth Anonymous, Tim did not organize that SA pong tournament. He didn't even attend. However, my point is not that reporting Adam was right or even a good idea, but that Adam's response is ludicrously overblown. Keep it between the two of them, is what I'm saying, and trying to impeach Tim is bringing a lot of other people (at the very least all of SA) into it is absurd and out of line.

First anonymous, it may not be nice but as far as I know, it is legal. I don't feel too bad about this. Sorry.

Andrew's done a clever thing. Most of the campus is very sympathetic to left-wing ideas. But he's turned the Free Press into something everyone hates. Well, no, they probably just hate Andrew Seal and the tenor he's given the paper he edits. Possibly he thinks he's being tough--a wonderful example of short man syndrome, trying to compensate for his personal lack of toughness. I'm curious to just how many Free Press staff members hate this tiny shithead.

I also wonder what Connor Shepherd thinks of this post: a certain special someone in his life has been included on the Bad List, after all.

Prediction: Seal is so lily-livered that once the heat gets too much in the comments section, he'll take this down. He's the kind of guy who does douchey things and then is amazed when people call him one of the biggest douches on campus. Keep up the good fight, dude! History will vindicate you.

Known "cronies"? Can you please list reasons why each of those on your list are cronies? Otherwise, this is an unwarranted shot at the character of those listed. Perhaps your “douche” reputation is true …

I know (because I've hung out with them before) that Chadd Funk, Marshall Smith, Matt Prout, and Thomas Plichta are all good friends of Allan Jackson's and, as far as I know, have never attended SA meetings before last Tuesday. I feel that justified their flagging.

Similarly, I know Ben Reed is a friend of many of the Chi Gams attending and, again, as far as I know, has never regularly attended SA meetings.

Jon Milliken, I confess, I don't know personally, but someone I trust suggested he should be flagged as well. In retrospect, I probably should have relied only on my own information and, if someone asks, I will de-flag his name.

My point in posting the list was merely to show how many - and not specifically who - Adam brought to this meeting for the express purpose of impeaching Tim. The point is the number, not the names. I just know that commenters would call me out if I merely offered a number and nothing else, and rightly so.

Seal says "Tim is disliked by many people not because he's doing a bad job, but because he's doing a better job than they want. The past two terms (fall and last spring) have been amazingly different from previous terms here in terms of what conversations are held and who feels comfortable standing up for themselves and others." That statement is laughable. By running a campaign based on inflated statistics, Tim created apathy toward sexual assault rather than deep awareness. People became skeptical about the severity of the issue because of his flagrant exaggeration. Now a deceitful and ineffective presidency is being challenged, and Seal thinks it is just an extension of a personal rivalry. It is amazing one could be so blind to the feelings of many individuals in the student body- perhaps spending all day blogging and editing the Free Press has left Seal a little out of touch.

I may not read the DFP frequently, but the several other publications that I do read give legitimacy to their sources (an anonymous source within the administration, etc etc). They don't simply list unnamed sources that could easily have been solicited. Were these people approached by Adam, who asked them to join expressly because of his grudge? Maybe Adam asked them to join and they connected the dots themselves? Or maybe he approached a friend of these sources? A friend of a friend perhaps? Generally "what reporting is about" is legitimate stories with legitimate sources. It's fine if they're anonymous, but at least let your readers know that they are somehow, at least tangentially, involved in what's going on here. I have doubts that this small modicum of integrity has been reached.

Wow, this is quite a scoop. Maybe even THE D would be interested. In fact, maybe they should write a story about it for tomorrow's issue, meshing their famous sourcing with Seal's equally famous sourcing. Combined, they can do anything.

OK seriously. Timmy has actually been a bad SA president. That is one of those things that people just agree on. Seal is letting politics and ideology blind him to that accepted fact. For a "Homme Des LEttres", or whatever he claims to be on his facebook, that is a big problem.

Anonymous @ 3:36 : If so many are so opposed to Tim, why should it take Adam to ring them all up? And look who it is that's coming--it's some of his Chi Gam brothers and Reviewers. That's not cross-campus support, that's people who don't like Tim because he addresses issues that they don't want addressed. The fact that the Review covers Tim so much is evidence that he's actually done something on campus.

Anonymous @ 3:43 : You've got to be kidding me. Our campus is small enough, you could probably figure out shortly who I was talking about if I give any salient details or at least have it narrowed down to a handful of people.

Anonymous @ 4:59 : Shpeen's vendetta has nothing to do with whether Tim has done a good job or not (and maybe you should re-check your sources, because there might be some biased reporting there. Not everyone agrees with your sentiments). It's about what happened between Tim and Adam. Adam is just using the already present resentment in groups who are predisposed to hate Tim. That is illegitimate.

Out of 40 some kids on that list, you find 4 Reviewers and it somehow becomes a vast conspiracy? While I don't disagree that many of those kids would be sympathetic to getting rid of tim, to say that the Review is taking an active role in this is, quite frankly, a really stupid extrapolation. The Chi Gam thing... probably has some more credence to it.

5:38, what do you expect? Seal's a hysterical little constipated fool. He and Timmy have managed to make an overwhelmingly liberal campus think they're amazing douches. Then when the munchkins rebel, he lectures at them about journalistic ethics. Now that he looks pretty ridiculous he's doing his best to make this about the Review. Yeah, those fuckers are messing him up via remote control.

5:53 - yeah, you're right. it's not even the senior leadership that's involved. but when i said that the review was being enlisted, i didn't mean as a corporate entity; i meant it functioned as a source for recruitment. I apologize to the review for this lack of clarity.

An earlier post made the point that Andreadis has not done a good job as president...The D certainly doesn't believe he's performed well, nor do an awful many students. He has done a very good job of heightening awareness of sexual assault, hysterically in some cases, but thats what he has prioritized all along; he has been shitty at day-to-day work, and his intellectually lazy efforts on things like "mascots" are three-year-old retreads of failed initiatives.That said, he has riled up many, many students and his most recent petty manuever against Shpeen (no saint) seems to have temporarily rallied students against him...whatever you want to say about Shpeen, he has spent four years doing lots of the lousy grunt work that students actually WANT, like try to reform the COS or improve academic departments. At the very least, Shpeen earned the right to certain discretion and respect, for the amount of work that he has done (very few seniors even stick around to provide the SA with leadership)...but Andreadis once again proved that he is out for his own self. If this becomes the flashpoint for the Andreadis removal, thats fine. But Seal, you're making it seem like this is an isolated incident which has garnered Andreadis so much unpopularity. The SA is designed so that the students can change it when enough of them care. Thats what is happening here.

You know, my life actually hasn't gotten any worse because of this hypothetical laxness in SA this term under Tim's leadership. On the other hand, if Tim is removed, SA's going to go in the shitter fast and no one will get any of their services.

But the point is, even if some things may have slipped, people only want to impeach Tim because of what he talks about and who he calls out. People on this comment board have already paired the two of us, so I feel somewhat justified saying that Tim and I are unpopular in some places on campus merely because we aren't afraid to call out shit on this campus when we see it, and we're not afraid to hold specific people accountable for the shit they do. Yeah, our views about campus issues differ widely from a significant number of frat brothers and Reviewers, but so do a lot of people. The difference is, Tim and I don't just shut up about it and complain about it to our friends.

If that's self-righteousness, fine--I plead guilty. Many of the comments on this page show exactly how unabashedly assholic a number of Dartmouth students are. You're just underlining my points.

Sorry, I still don't get it. You make a very concerted effort to show that a number of people showed up and that 8-10 of them are connected to Adam Shpeen, while a handful of others are ideologically conservative. You then go on to say that all of these people are motivated by a personal grudge on Adam's part. But the conservatives obviously couldn't give a shit about the feud--they probably just dislike Andreadis. So, most are there because they actually don't like Andreadis as SA Pres and others might be motivated by the personal feud (I'm not completely convinced by the word of sources who may or may not be connected--can we please hear something about their connection to this whole thing?). How do the actions of these 8-10 guys make the story that the personal vendetta is behind the whole thing? Shouldn't it be that conservatives have been mobilized against Andreadis, while a few others have joined because of a personal vendetta (even if that is true)? Seems like Seal is manipulating specifics of this story to belittle it.

last anonymous: here's the thing. Adam has a personal vendetta. There are other people who don't like Tim but who independently have done nothing about it and probably wouldn't think to join forces and blockrush SA if Adam didn't suggest it, coordinate the efforts, and actually recruit people, trying to convince them to come along for the ride. My point is not that these people like Tim and have been brainwashed by Adam, but that this move to impeach Tim was initiated because Adam wanted to even a score And the people who are joining up aren't even interested in SA--they're interested in harassing a person they don't like and removing him from a position that allows him to call them out for their actions. If there are people who have legitimate reasons for wanting to remove Tim, Reviewers and Chi Gams aren't them.

You know, my life actually hasn't gotten any worse because of this hypothetical laxness in SA this term under Tim's leadership. [Perhaps you weren’t disciplined because Andreadis turned you because of some sort of animosity. More importantly, who gives a shit about your life as a measuring rod? Presumably you wrote on this blog to convince people. So you raving about your quality of life doesn’t do much. You have to address other people’s problems.] On the other hand, if Tim is removed, SA's going to go in the shitter fast and no one will get any of their services. [Bullshit. What a flimsy fucking argument. You probably realized this was wrong as soon as you posted this message. There are plenty of competent people under him—people who are MORE competent than he is who care more about providing student services than whining about the Dartmoose.]

But the point is, even if some things may have slipped [What the fuck does this even mean?], people only want to impeach Tim because of what he talks about and who he calls out. [Yes, presumably these are legitimate grounds for grievance. And impeachment rests on the number of people present. Timmy is trying to save his own ass by changing the rules. Pathetic. If there’s one defining feature of Andreadis, it’s not “radical” like he’d like to believe, but “childish.”] People on this comment board have already paired the two of us, so I feel somewhat justified saying that Tim and I are unpopular in some places on campus merely because we aren't afraid to call out shit on this campus when we see it [The fact that people have paired you on this board in no way justifies you in saying that you’re hated because you “call people out.” Learn basic logic. What people object to is when you proclaim your views and then expect to be followed like the pied piper. Sorry, dude: I don’t know how old you are, but not everyone is going to agree with you. Maybe you’ll learn that someday.], and we're not afraid to hold specific people accountable for the shit they do. [Yeah, you’re very brave here with your blog. A fucking hero.] Yeah, our views about campus issues differ widely from a significant number of frat brothers and Reviewers, but so do a lot of people. The difference is, Tim and I don't just shut up about it and complain about it to our friends. [That sucks. There’s a silent majority, but they’re too yellow to speak up. Only you, Seal, in this sea of ignorance. It’s a great story, do you whisper it to yourself at night as you fall asleep? Or could it be you don’t know shit about this particular instance but just happen to find most of the campus ungrateful, after you gave them the gift of fire, kind of like Prometheus?]

If that's self-righteousness, fine--I plead guilty. [An interesting tactic. Let’s see where it takes you.] Many of the comments on this page show exactly how unabashedly assholic a number of Dartmouth students are. You're just underlining my points. [Oh, I see. Again--the peasants are just terribly ungrateful for what you’ve done on their behalf. If they’d only implement your plan everything would be great. Another thing: Dartmouth, frat boys, the Review - - did you want to go to Dartmouth? Presumably you knew these things were here. Where did you want to go to school? Princeton? You think if you’d gone there you’d be hailed as the fucking messiah? If this is how you think, you’re gonna have a disappointing life. Let’s start with your first job out of college, when you’re ready to leave the non-assholic world of Dartmouth, and you encounter people who don’t say ‘how high?’ when you say ‘jump.’ Assholes! Fuck ‘em! You have fun with that, dude. Maybe you can start a list and put asterisks next to the names of people you don’t like.]

Andrew, there are a lot of people on that who have no association with Chi Gam, the Review, or SA, and in fact aren't even conservative. i would guess they want Tim out for similar reasons as everyone else, and those reasons have little or nothing to do with Adam Shpeen

If we're making liberal/conservative distinctions, I also think that it's worth pointing out that Adam Shpeen is one of the most liberal people on this campus.

Currently Tim would probably win the "Most Visible Liberal SA Member" Award. But before Time was ever involved with SA, people associated that with Adam.

This isn't a political idealism debate, like the Alumni Constitution was. It isn't about the broad direction of Dartmouth. It is a mere issue of competence, effectiveness, and ethics. Tim has markedly failed on all three counts.

1218 - you're going to have to format that a little better. i'm not going to bother reading that spew.

1220 - maybe you're missing my point. I am not suggesting that we prevent democracy from happening by disenfranchising Reviewers. That's stupid, and ridiculous of you to try to pin that on me. I'm just saying that the grounds for this effort are illegitimate, that the reasons for attempting this are bad. I haven't challenged their ability to do this, just their reasons for doing so.

101 - I think you missed the point of the list. The names with the stars next to them are the people I'm identifying as likely those whom Adam has enlisted. The whole list is just the attendance roll for the last meeting. It's not likely that Tim (who's on the list) is part of the cabal, for instance.

126 - If Adam is liberal, I guess that makes me a fucking flame-throwing anarchist.

As for your other point, though--maybe the discussion on this blog has turned into evaluating Tim's job performance, but that's not how Adam's coup started out, and that's what I reported on in the first place.

Seal, I am unable to understand why you are convinced that Adam's "coup" is based entirely on his personal rivalry. This is not at all logical. Why would a large group of individuals, regardless of their friendship with Adam, attend three SA meetings in order to do him a favor? Word on the street is that SA meetings are not the most enthralling events, and everyone knows Dartmouth students are busy. The point is this: students, whether close friends or frat brothers, would never waste their time on this if it was not something they felt strongly about. It does not seem to me that Adam's alleged issues with Tim must exclude the possibility that many people are upset with Tim. In fact, his "coup" would not have a chance if it were not for the frustrations of many students. So to say that this "coup" started out isolated from these opinions about Tim's presidency is completely false, and indeed, the very discussion of Tim's performance is absolutely relevant. Your inability to comprehend this seemingly obvious point may be based on your alliance with Tim or it may be due to your refusal to accept that Adam did not brainwash all of Chi Gam, but either way, it is detrimental to the discussion of what actually matters.

300 am - I don't know if you didn't read prior comments, but I addressed this previously in my comment @ 11:52 -- "My point is not that these people like Tim and have been brainwashed by Adam, but that this move to impeach Tim was initiated because Adam wanted to even a score." Have you heard of pretext? I recognize that many of the people I starred have different motivations for disliking Tim than does Adam. I actually have recognized this in print now a few times. What I also recognize is that Adam started a concerted movement which would have been otherwise unlikely to have happened because of a personal vendetta. I am calling the movement illegitimate not because I think everyone has identical motives, but because the movement has an illegitimate origin—Adam's anger at Tim. Adam brought people together to fulfill a wish, not to help SA, not to help the school. That origin is what I'm criticizing.

As regards Seal's last comment, as to the impeachment drive being "illegitimate" because it was initiated by Shpeen's justified personal problems with Andreadis:1) It's a "political" issue too, as far as inter-SA relations go. Shpeen is a good example of the typical, "ggod" SA member who actually tries to get a few things done, no matter if the President is a religious and political conservative or an unorthodox liberal. He deserved better treatment and the SA leader, and President of the Student Body, is obliged to give credit where credit is due. 2) Is Adam's cause illegitimate? You seem to think so. But how about everyone else's motivation? Can you look beyond your fondness for Tim and appreciate that a bona fide SA change is happening again? Yes, Adam has shown leadership on this issue, but his leadership does not in any way make this an illegitimate movement.3) If Andreadis were better at his job, this would not become the only thing he will be remembered for, like Hildreth was remembered for being pushy and controlling or Janos for being an out-of-control rage siren, or Noah Riner for being a Christian who made a nutty speech. Andreadis will now be marked as the guy who went and tattled the administration that Shpeen had some drinks in the SA office with a couple of peers. His efforts to better the campus will now be marred by his inability to pick his battles and his inability to get along with his fellow classmates.

Andrew, It is almost comical how you continue to deny there could possibly be rational motives to impeach Tim. Your failure to see past this "personal vendetta", which you yourself have created, is showing your inability to clearly think through the situation. You aren't a whistle blower or holding anyone accountable but instead making a fool out of yourself. It is very clear to those who are commenting on your blog, why is it not clear to you is the telling question.

I think Andrew should be highly commended for being brave enough to stand behind what he thinks, and for questioning our assumptions about how our campus is running. Obviously he has hit on a point of contention that needs to be addressed, otherwise he would be ignored, and clearly from all the comments this blog gets, that is not the case. Andrew, I think you are doing a good thing for our campus and I hope you keep doing it.

The Little Green Blog retains all rights to the materials it publishes and requests that work be attributed with a link back to the original page. The opinions expressed herein are solely of the respective author.